I have a person arguing with me that more Repugs than Dems turned out in Iowa

They actually called me up to brag about this "fact."

Their proof? Go to this CNN link and look at the table they use to show the election results. --> http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#IA


See how, for some reason, they show the number of delegates in the forth column for the Democrats, but not on the same column for the Republicans. In the forth column on the Republican's graph they show what I suppose is total number of supporters. It makes it appear that the Republican turn out far out numbered the Democrats last night.

Anyone know why it's done this way?

I've explained all of this to them and provided them with several sources.

All they've got is that damn CNN graph, which I also explained to them has a different category header for column 4 on the Democrats side than it does on the Republicans.

I don't remember the raw numbers but I know the number for the R's seemed quite a bit larger when I heard it.

There were just under twice as many Dems as Repugs.

ABC and CNN are lying and they can kiss my bum. :P

democrats but did show the number of republicans. Interesing, propaganda at its finest, subtle and just tricky enough for the superficial to get their message and repeat it as if fact.

Perhaps whoever was doing the tally couldn't count high enough to keep up with the democrats turn out?

Seriously, I think it reflects that the Dem and Rep caucuses and convention processes are organized differently.

Thank you! That gives me something to tell this fool when they call back. :)

I personally think it was done to give exactly the impression you express. :tinfoilhat: :eyes:

Freeper 'moranic inbreading'.

What about the turnout?

This was also another important factor.

The Republican turnout was about 115,000, up on the 2000 figure of 87,666. For the Democrats it was even higher, with some 239,000 turning out to register their choice, up from 124,000 four years ago.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7171057.stm

With all due respect to Senator Obama's victory, the most important news out of the caucus this evening was the whopping, room-busting turnout of Democrats. 239,000 people showed up to vote Democratic tonight (93% more than in '04, which was a record year), while only 115,000 showed up to vote Republican. And this is a red state!

we may have went narrowly for bush in '04, but in '06 we elected a democratic governor, as well as all dem state office positions except one, and flipped our house delegation from 1 dem and 4 republicans to 3 dems and 2 republicans. Can we no longer be refered to as a red state? I need to sleep at night.

I'll give them these numbers when I speak to them later. :)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=389&topic_id=2589649&mesg_id=2589698

Heavy Turnout for Iowa Caucuses
By LUKE MEREDITH – 8 hours ago

WEST DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — As the time to caucus approached, precinct captain Dave Erickson realized he had a problem: More than 100 people and one small room.

With eight precincts gathering at the West Des Moines high school, there wasn't an empty spot in sight.

"I don't know what we're going to do. It's going to be a challenge," Erickson said. "It's a great slate of candidates. There's great interest in all of them."

The scene at that caucus was repeated across the state as a record number of Iowans left their homes on a cold night and filled nearly 1,800 school gyms, fire houses and community halls. Democrats estimated turnout at 239,000, and nearly 115,000 Republicans took part.

-- snip -- more at link.

I can only guess that the inconsistent table in the OP is related to the way the caucuses function and report - I think the republicans just come in and vote and the vote tally is what is reported, while the dems do an instant voter runoff system, and in the end comes up not with a raw number of voters, but instead with a distribution of delegates (votes) assigned to particular candidates rather than the number of voters voting for each candidate.

"Instead of releasing caucus vote totals, the Iowa Democratic Party releases a total estimating the number of delegates to the state convention each candidate will receive."

So CNN doesn't have access to the actual vote counts. Why the Iowa Dems do it this way continues to be a mystery, but there's no media conspiracy here.

CNN is full of crap.

Just saw that myself after having it pointed out above that it's how the information is released to the media which caused this.

Apparently the state Dem party decided to release delegate numbers rather than actual votes...They are not interchangeable, so I don't know what your "friend" is bragging about....

I never said the person was a friend. I was stretching our relationship when I called them a "person." :D

Here's the lowdown: The last time both parties held caucuses in Iowa was 2000. Here are the numbers of participants from 2000 and 2008:

Republicans Democrats
2000 87,000 59,000
2008 115,000 236,000

Now, the Republicans had a pretty respectable increase in their numbers, but the Democrats quadrupled their turnout for the caucuses. Add into the mix that the two parties conduct their caucuses differently: The Republicans just had to show up, submit their vote, and head home. Democrats had to commit to about a two-hour block of gathering, speechifying, dividing into various groups, and reapportioning the voters for the "non-viable" candidates who received less than 15% of the initial groupings.

If the person you're dealing with has any grasp on reality at all, these numbers should indicate that Democrats (and independents) are a lot more stoked about the Democratic field than the Republicans. If this person doesn't have such a grasp on reality, then amuse yourself by alternately pointing and laughing.

to our advantage if they are that stoopid.

Nothing I do or say will ever lift the veil of 'stoopid' from this persons eyes.

But you're right, don't argue with an idiot. I know better.

I would guess there are more Republicans than Dems in Iowa so shouldn't the turnout be higher?

Democrats are really motivated and inspired to get out this year!! I hope Iowa was just the beginning of massive Democratic turnout!

"Yet the biggest sign of Bush’s influence last night was this result: a whopping 239,000 people participated in the Democratic caucuses, compared with 116,000 for the GOP."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/

CSpan just reported there were about 120,000 republicans, and 239,000 Democrats that turned out in Iowa last night. If you're a betting person, wage a bet with the person calling you. :evilgrin:

According to Talking Points Memo, 115,000 Republicans caucused versus 220,000 Democrats. Regardless of how we cut it, analyze it, or interpret it, that's a huge disparity of numbers.

I think our voters are energized over the strong field of candidates and personalities we have to choose from this time around, contrasted to the relatively weak and anemic collection of Republican candidates.

At the end of the day, I think that' the main reason why we'll continue to vote in strong numbers this cycle and trounce the GOP in November-- we're as excited, passionate and energetic about this election as the GOP was when it retook the House and Senate back in '92.